What a bunch of crap. The NRA has done an excellent job of protecting the rights of gun owners in the USA. They have 4.5 million members and represent the 100 million gun owners in the US.
The power of the NRA is not waning. There are more law abiding gun owners in the US than registered Democrats and some of them are gun ownets. At the end of July the NRA helped to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty as far as the US is concerned by getting 51 Senators to go on record against this gun grab. As for the Brits, you seem to forget that in the dark days of 1940 it was the American NRA members who sent their rifles and handguns to help Britain. Yes freedom has its risks. There are many places in the world where only the government can shoot you.

Believe that garbage if you want to and one easy way to refute it is the number of returning veterans. Does any civilian believe the military mindset is so meek and subordinate that they are going to leave their personal safety up to the cops. No, soldiers undergo an intense mind conditioning process that takes years to undo and sometimes it's never undone if they see combat.

So don't try selling this waning NRA influence; it's exactly the opposite. The NRA is gaining strength thanks to the young veterans returning home who have shed blood and know what it takes to keep freedom alive(guns).

The writer is probably right about the recent past and the future of the NRA's influence in politics in the USA, and has done well by their analysis of the related changes in demographics in the USA and the NRA's inability to keep pace with those changes. The writer's association of assault weapons and the current concealed carry issues in the USA is, however, a glaring misstep. There is no association between the 2 that I'm aware of.

Surely, the association is obvious. Both concealed weapons and assault weapons are the preferred weapons of criminals. A hand gun which is capable of firing multiple times when fully loaded is preferred for close encounters such as a one on one robbery. An assault weapon is preferred by those who either intend to inflict maximum damage or are concerned about having superior fire power when they confront the police.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "assault weapons" but I assume you mean semi-auto rifles that resemble those used by the military. I'd argue it is extremely unusual that rifles of this description are used while committing crimes (unless you're using Hollywood movies as a gauge.) So it is odd to me that you'd claim they are among "the preferred weapons of criminals."

What is an "assault weapon"? Let me put it this way: it's ANYTHING SOME IGNORANT SCHMUCK CONSIDERS A SCARY GUN.
And that's the problem with democracy: people elect ignorant schmucks who write half-assed bills and acts like the "Assault Weapons Ban".

I fear you have not done your research. The statistics from the FBI show quite the opposite of your claims. Gun ownership has significantly increased in the US by almost 30 million people. 17 million women were first time purchasers of guns last year. The FBI now estimates more than 43% of all households in the US own guns, up from 37% just a year ago. The FBI does accurately watch this for all the right reasons. PLEASE do your homework first next time you write such an article.

"These days the debate is no longer whether assault rifles ought to be banned, but whether they should be allowed in bars, churches and schools."

I stopped reading right there. This is an outrageous falsehood at worst and unnecessary, irresponsible sensationalism at best. It is no wonder your readers find U.S. gun laws "incomprehensible" if they are getting their information from your pages.

Assault rifles are already banned for the most part (it is possible to acquire one but the supply is extremely limited as no new such weapons are allowed and the paperwork is onerous). I have never even seen one in person.

Next time the Economist writes an article on guns or gun laws, could they at least do their basic background research first?

Here, I'll help you. From the first Google result, an entry in Wikipedia.org:

"An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

A few paragraphs down:

"The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers."

If it ain't automatic, then it isn't an Assault Rifle. Unless we are going to allow idiots like whoever penned this article to redefine terms to suit them (and I'd rather not).

I am currently in Texas, and there is a gun range about a mile from my house. As it happens, I was there last week. Still never seen an Assault Rifle. I have seen many look-alikes, but never the real thing. Because they are nearly impossible to get. Or I would have one.

Reading the comments, including my prior one, it's apparent how few on either side of the question really understand the Second Amendment. And, indeed, the Constitution, not a gun culture, is what separates American civil society from European. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was an agreement among sovereign states that bound them together. It is a partnership contract that lays out specific powers and can only be modified by the amendment process. And we want to keep the Second Amendment.

It is interesting to me that somehow nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights were intended to safeguard individual liberty against an abusive state, but the Second Amendment had something to do with the National Guard hunting to feed their families and then running off marauding bears from the streets of Boston.

I disagree that it is the Constitution that separates American civil society from European. What separation are we talking about? There are differences within Europe just as there are in the US, and these differences and broadly similar.

What the American constitution is most revered for is the supposed safeguarding of civil rights. The same can be said in France, Germany etc etc. In the UK, whilst we have an unwritten constitution, we cherish our rights with equal zeal as the Americans. The arguments about the role of the state and the constitution that are found in the US are also found in Europe.

What I think many Europeans think is that the American constitution is quite outdated. It was based on European laws and philosophy dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries and is still constrained by such thinking. In Europe it is generally true that new rights and civil liberties can be introduced and ones that were once thought to be beneficial but turns out were divisive, bad for society or harmful to others can be repealed. This is much harder in the USA.

The European constitution also lays out specific powers and can only be modified with the approval of member states similar to the US. This is widely regarded as unresponsive and I'd like to see how long it is until it is overhauled.

I guess my point here is that the Europeans and Americans are exceptionally similar, minor differences here and there might have some effect on the outlook of individuals but not to the extent that I think you'll find gaping differences between similar societies in Europe and the US.

the second amendment allows you protect yourself from anything that you view as an infringment of your rights.
In europe a police officer can break into your home and rape your family and then he would go to jail (hopefully)
In america you can shoot the officer as he breaks into your house before he rapes your family, but then you go to jail for murder.
In europe, it is up to the society to protect you and if they arent there to do it, your "f"ed. In america at least you have the option to protect yourself.

Europeans just cannot understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that government did not have the sole and exclusive right to the use of force. Freedom is risky. But Americans prefer it to the alternative.

One reason I like The Economist is that its views are interwoven with the facts of the story. However, it misses the mark here. The CDC's work was foolish, in that it was not rooted in examining real-world use of firearms. By carefully framing the questions from the point of view of, "Are there more firearms discharges that save the owner from danger, or that hurt the owner?" CDC was missing the true value of a firearm - its deterrence. Yes, it is a double-edge sword (I wonder where that metaphor comes from) and the owner takes on a serious liability for careless use, including criminal and civil penalties. Some experts say it costs over $50,000 in legal fees to even justifiably shoot another person in self-defense. Perhaps the problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws is that it's too easy to escape the subsequent legal nightmares.

One fact to consider before additional bashing of Americans occurs: Europeans in general, Brits in particular, do not think, speak or write in German BECAUSE Americans have guns!

Remember as well: Japan knew not to sail past Hawaii after it's cowardly sneak attack on Pearl Harbor BECAUSE it knew in it's heart of heart virtually EVERY American household had guns - lots of them, complete with more than adequate ammunition to eliminate every Japanese invader.

When you go to bed tonight thank God for America, and for Americans. We were there for you in World War I AND in World War II AND we bailed-out aggressor Germany with the "Marshall Plan"

That is not a particularly compelling argument. The americans only entered WWII when they themselves had been attacked. In fact long before you did, we had asked the americans for help and been refused. But this article was not about whether an army should have guns, it was about whether every Tom, Dick and Harry should have one.

Our armies also have guns you know.... and we use those armies (I live in the UK) amongst other things to help out our American friends when you've been attacked. Remember 9/11?

When I go to bed tonight, I won't thank God for America. Over here we don't believe in God, but I'm very happy to recognise that our relationship with America is mutually beneficial. Thank you for your friendship. We appreciate it.

Our military accomplished everything of which you are speaking. The fact that guns were in x number of American homes really isn't applicable. Do you really believe the Japanese were more concerned about armed civilians than the U.S. military?

I get a laugh out of thinking how scared the Japanese brass must have been of all these guns in civilian hands... at a time when the military was nearly 15% of the Hawaiian population.
I wonder whether Tom Coyne goes to bed every night thanking France for his freedom - for that is one incontrovertible historical fact, that U.S. independence would not have happened without French help.

Then you must be profoundly ignorant of the pacific war as most europeans are.

No wonder you have never heard of that famous saying by a Japanese general that if the Japanese had ever landed troops on undefended California, there would have been "a gun behind every blade of grass."

"unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)

Who could seriously believe that Yamamoto would imagine California militarily "undefended"? Let us not insult the man's intelligence, shall we? Not to mention that of the average reader of the Economist, who would have a bit of a sense of the contribution of California to the US war effort?

Dude, US did its part in the WW2 but it was Russia and the Siberian cold who stopped the Germans. Every country history books tells its own version of the history and I happen te have read most of them.By the way i am not a Russian and I dislike Russian orthodox (Greek and other shovinist Slavs included) shovinism.

Dude, Roosevelt gave billions in Lendlease to a bankrupt Russia and it was only after lendlease aid started flowing that the Russians were able to beat back the Germans.

On December 7 1941 when Pearl habour was hit, the Germans had reached deep into Russian terrority and the talk was about a Russain collapse.

On December 11 Hitler declares war on America and Roosevelt sends billions in Lendlease to the Russians. The Russians had their victory in Stalingrad in 1942, a crucial turning point in the war which sends the advancing German army into retreat.

December 11 1941 the day Hitler declared war on the USA, was the day the third Reich signed its death warrant.

Some Americans are impeccably honorable about WWII. And some are insufferable "glory hogs" on behalf of their country. The truth, perhaps too complex for some, is that Britain was saved by America and did save America. Same goes for the Soviet Union. Suppose the Fuehrer had tamed Britain and relieved it of the Royal Navy: America would have had a far more well-armed, far more technologically sophisticated (in radar, submarines, jets, rockets) Nazi superpower in control of greater aggregate industrial resources than the USA, as rival. To take things from bad to really bad, many of the scientists that would later work on the Manhattan project were refugees in Britain in 1940. They could have ended up working, behind barbed wire, in some remote Alpine valley.

So quit with your "we saved you" when you were yourselves saved by British fighter pilots and millions of (under) armed Soviets. None of the "big three" could have beaten Hitler on their own. Not even any two out of the three would have resulted in the complete Nazi defeat that happened (unless, perhaps, Germany had been nuked and nuked and nuked in the end, then all bets are off). But America alone did not, and could never have, beaten Hitler. The "Allies" did. All of them.

As many others have pointed out to you there is a distinction between personal gun ownership and the military apparatus of a state.

As a matter of note for your history the British, whilst struggling, were performing quite well against Germany before direct American involvement. We had defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain before the US entered the war in 1941 and had secured the oceans and destroyed Germany's ability to project its power at sea. We were also busy bombing the hell out of them and inflicting disastrously high civilian casualties. And in what many people consider a pivotal turning point in the war it was indeed the British who cracked enigma. So whilst the US might have sped up the process of the war, it certainly isn't true that the British would now be speaking German.

Oh, and the British were the biggest beneficiary of Marshall aid - not Germany. Without it the American economy would have collapsed, no trading partners, no economy.

The Brits already had a plan to spirit away their government, Royal family and all those brilliant scientists to Canada in the event of an immenient German conquest and fight from their colonies.

German occuppied Europe & Britain with a hostile population sabotaging the German war machine would have not been the God awful unbeatable machine you feel compelled to conjure up in order to feed you pro-British and anti-American bias.

I don't debate with spiteful genocide deniers. But of course you just illustrated the care with which Britain saved the world, and saved America, from a nuclear Nazi superpower. So even though you exaggerate the plans for transporting physicists out of Britain, you simply prove my point: One ally did not save the others. They worked together because none of them could save itself by itself. Honorable Americans understand that. Glory hogs do not.

Words like "honor" should never be used by a person such as yourself you goes around demonising another county with lies such as small pox blankets and then when the true culprits are found to be British keeps mum about it.

No doubt you though the British were as dumb as you and would simple wait for the Germans to get their hands on British scientists or weapons which could be of any use to Hitler's war plans.

However I see that you are hogging all the glory for the British when it comes to scientists who built the A-bomb. Scientists from 3 countries 0 USA, Canada & Britain all built it, howver in your true hogging the glory fashion you totally ingore the North American contribution.

And no need to lie about how the cream of European scientists were all in Britain.

Einstein and Oppenheimer were already in America. The cream of continental Europe's scientits mostly fled to America.
Or are you going to lie now that Enisten was in Britain? No doubt you are capable of doing so to feed your pro-British and anti-American bias.

So using lies to come with the idiotic hypothetical scenarios are not only laughable and exposes your stupidity in all its glory.

The British were not. Their first act was to try to seize the guns of the American colonists. Big mistake. They lost the war and lost the colonies. Today there are about 100 million gun owners in the USA. That is a big problem for any army.

The "right to bear arms" declared in the late 18th century appeared whenpeople still hunted to put animal protein on thetable.The State Militias were important in the revolution.
Both of these conditions are now only memories.
Guns have assumed adifferent social role, in the control of violence
For manycenturies it has been the State and its organizations which controlled violence,expressed as war or antisocial criminal acts.
Weaponry has been divided into military and non military classes.
Hand guns and hunting rifles are in the latter class.
I cannot imagine that the authors and defenders of the bill ofRights would accept bazookas grenade launchers AK47's and submachine guns as arms to be toted by town dwellers and varmit despising farmers.

The progressive loss of the obligation to control violence by society's organizations-- armies, militia, and police forces needs reexamination andreorganization withthe rights of society's members to peaceful coexistence prevalent over the individual's irrationalities that shock harmonious neighborly living.eroding faith and trust in your fellow citizen in a democratic environment.
.

"ONE of the things Europeans find incomprehensible about America is its love of guns. There are two reasons they don’t get it."

I'd like to point out one classic misunderstanding in the above. Legally and culturally America and Europe do not really differ very much over guns per se but over HANDGUNS. It is fairly easy, w a few hoops and fees but nothing major, to legally acquire and use HUNTING weapons in Europe. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Swedes, Danes, Germans and others have shotguns and hunting rifles. It is far more difficult to acquire handguns legally there. At least to keep in your home. So the difference in gun ownership across the Atlantic, while real, is often exaggerated in numbers. The real difference is in TYPES of weapons owned.

This is relevant to gun violence for two reasons: One is that the purpose of a handgun is to shoot and kill humans. True, it "can" be used for hunting but then again, if you could run fast enough, so could a kitchen knife. Neither is designed for it and neither is very suited for it. And the other important difference is that handguns, like short blades (i.e. switch-blades), can be carried in a concealed way. It is very difficult, and hopelessly inconvenient, to carry a hunting rifle or a shotgun in a conceiled manner. This makes a very large to how useful such weapons are for criminals. The same, I may note, is true for blades: A quality machete or a Samurai sword are obviously far more powerful weapons than a switch-blade. But they are very hard to hide under your coat when down at the local pub downing a few pints for a night on the town. Therefore, despite their increased power as weapons, neither hunting rifles nor swords are much of a problem in the hands of criminals. The handgun and the short blade are the dangerous ones because you can carry them without others knowing about it.

And people who do use handguns to kill innocent people don't care about the laws. Because, hint hint, they're criminals. People who jump through bureaucratic hoops to own a handgun (and believe me, even in the US there are bureaucratic hoops to jump through!) usually need it to defend themselves from criminals and other threats real or imagined. The problem isn't in whether they have it or not - it's more about the mentality and eagerness to use it. Once you pull the trigger, it's over. And the problem with some people is that they're way too eager to do it. See: George Zimmerman.

Fair enough. I assume the amount of handguns in society is inversely related to how difficult it is for criminals to get one. I think the problem in the US is partly the amount of handguns. But it is also a complicated question why there is so much gun violence in the USA. I don't pretend to completely understand the issue. And I will say that some weapon laws, often about blades rather than guns, in say Denmark, are ridiculously tight and restrictive. I don't think that is better.

It's not a correct assumption (but the NRA like to claim it anyway). The problem with gun violence in USA is that "normal" people sometimes buy guns, own them for some time, and then something goes wrong with their psyche. They snap and either shoot themselves or someone else. Unscrupulous media "crusaders" (not only in the US, it happens in Europe too) use such cases to rant about how guns are evil - yet when it comes to murder-suicide cases where no firearm was used, the same media crusaders have nothing to say.

Hold your horses, Cletus. While I believe that the state-provided means of security cannot be everywhere at once, simply allowing everyone to own weapons is not a solution. As much as the thought of accidentally mugging someone who may put a couple of holes in your important organs is a deterrent, there's the risk of escalation - the criminals may "protect" themselves by sourcing illegal firearms to use against their victims. And that's gonna drive law-abiding citizens paranoid. So, on one hand maintaining the works of justice (police, courts, etc.) and on the other allowing people to defend themselves, but with penalties for careless use of their weapons, is the best solution.

"the criminals may "protect" themselves by sourcing illegal firearms to use against their victims."

So what you're saying is criminals might break the law - Gee, have the sociologists figured this out yet. You may want to develop a PhD thesis around this revelation!

In case you haven't noticed, lot's of criminals have guns already and they are already getting them illegally. They didn't wait for the average citizen to get armed before they were spurred into action.

The research in Lott's book is not only outdated, but thoroughly debunked, including by some of Lott's more intellectually capable colleagues at Chicago. At this point, no micro- or metanalysis supports loose gun laws as preventing violence. It's neutral at best locally, and globally (state or nation-wide) harmful due to smuggling.

If you want predictors of the decline in crime, try civil rights and the right to abortion. These are robust antecedents to long-term decline in violence, including but not limited to gun violence.

gun sales and ammunition are breaking all records under Obama. one does not need to be a card carrying member of the NRA to own a gun. so it would seem any point of this story is moot, as a group, most gun owners do not belong to the NRA.

The research in Lott's book is not only outdated, but thoroughly debunked, including by some of Lott's more intellectually capable colleagues at Chicago. At this point, no micro- or metanalysis supports loose gun laws as preventing violence. It's neutral at best locally, and globally (state or nation-wide) harmful due to smuggling.

If you want predictors of the decline in crime, try civil rights and the right to abortion. These are robust antecedents to long-term decline in violence, including but not limited to gun violence.

The reason Americans have the freedom to buy, own and carry firearms is philosophical. America was the only nation in history to be founded on the abstract Enlightenment principle of rights. The four rights of life, liberty, private property and the pursuit of one's own happiness shape (or used to shape) American culture.

The right to firearms springs from the right of every individual to their own life. To live one must, among other things, be able to defend oneself and one's family. That is not the job of the police. The police conduct retrospective investigations after a rights violation has occurred. The free man possesses firearms to defend himself in an emergency ("when seconds count the police are just minutes away"...or in Norway half a day away).

If life is priceless, what is the implication of denying a man his right to defend it?

Similarly, if you believe that it is wrong to possess the means and will to use deadly force in defense of a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you? How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours when you take no responsibility yourself? Your life is precious, but the life of the police officer is only worth the $70,000 we pay him? The very idea is immoral.

Weapons have and always will be misused. The question is not what to do about weapons, but what to do about crime. The totalitarians among us have reversed the question.

The ideas of the Enlightenment have long faded and as America slides into fascism (the collective control of the means of production) I am amused and heartened that the basic right to life still has some legs.

I very much agree with what you say, but it's worth mentioning that fascism is define more by military rule, while the collective ownership of the means of production is socialism. Very different things

Opinions about a pair of contentious social issues, gun control and gay marriage, have changed substantially since previous presidential campaigns. On gun control, Americans have become more conservative; on gay marriage, they have become more liberal.

Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Opinion has been divided since early 2009, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. From 1993 through 2008, majorities had said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

Lott's research has NEVER been debunked except in the minds of anti-gun rights liberals. Lott published all the data used in his book. Anti-gun wackos cannot do and refuse to do, the same. Lott began the book believing the media and liberal lies about the need for gun control, then changed his mind when his own research proved liberals wrong.

Guns save lives. Over 2,000,000 per year in the USA alone. But liberals never mention that number.

The chart your link shows indicates gun control support has declined while support for gun rights has increased. You mind obviously reads unside down. Obama is a danger to citizen gun ownership, if re-elected people believe he will become more dictator hence gun and ammunition sales are at record levels.

Majority of liberals yes to fewer guns (excepts theirs), majority of rational people say keep our guns. USA has too many guns laws and the laws have never stopped criminals from obtaining guns. Our government even gives guns to criminals as in Fast and Furious! Then says more laws are needed to prevent criminals from obtaining guns!